Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Plaintiff,
vs. ORDER
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL
COMMITTEE,
Defendant.
Before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment
(Docs. 31 & 37) and Plaintiff Erika Peterman's motion to compel (Doc. 54). The
Court grants the motion for summary judgment of Defendant Republican National
Dinner, an annual Democratic fundraising event. (Doc. 28 at 4.) For a $500 fee,
Peterman photographed the event. (Doc. 28 at 4.) Several of the photos feature
seat in the House of Representatives. (Doc. 33-2.) One of the photos (referred to
-1-
as the "Work") shows Quist neck-up from behind, his cowboy hat slightly
Peterman edited the photos and shared them with the MDP on March 21,
unrestricted royalty-free licenses to the MDP and the Quist Campaign for no
additional fee. (Doc. 28 at 6.) As licensees, both the MDP and the Quist
attribution or copyright information. The MDP posted the Work without a caption
and as part of a series of images from the Mansfield-Metcalf Dinner, and the Quist
the RNC had issued mailers appropriating the Work and criticizing Quist to bolster
vendor that prepared the mailer on the RNC's behalf had downloaded the photo as
a high-resolution image directly from the Quist Campaign's Facebook page. (Doc.
Facebook post, and the parties agree that it would have been reasonable for the
RNC to assume that the Quist Campaign owned the Work. (Doc. 40 at 7-8.)
-2-
The mailer includes three images of Quist, all of which the RNC's vendor
found on the Quist Campaign's Facebook page. 1 On the front panel, next to the
address block, Quist stands in front of a microphone holding a guitar and wearing a
bolo tie, leather vest, and what appears to be the same cowboy hat worn in the
Work. (Doc. 28-1.) A treble clef appears at the top of the panel, with the words
"Tell Liberal Rob Quist:/ It's Time to Face the Music" over the adjacent music
staff. (Doc. 28-1.) Inside the mailer is a photoshopped image of Quist playing
guitar and singing, dressed in the same outfit and hat as on the front panel,
28-1.) At the top of the page, a treble clef precedes a staff over which is written
"Liberal/ Rob Quist/ Music to Nancy Pelosi's Ears." (Doc. 28-1.) Text appears
in the same style at the bottom of the page, with music notes in place of the treble
clef. (Doc. 28-1.) There, the text reads, "Rob Quist & Nancy Pelosi/ Singing the
Same Tune." (Doc. 28-1.) Finally, the Work covers the back panel. (Doc. 28-1.)
It is cropped slightly, and light streams down from the stage lights, a variation
from the original. (Doc. 28-1.) The same treble clef and staff cover the bottom left
comer of the panel, reading, "For Montana Conservatives,/ Liberal Rob Quist/
1
In addition to the Work, the mailer includes two screenshots from a video posted to the Facebook page. (Doc. 33-5
at 4.) The other two images are not at issue in this litigation.
-3-
On May 12, 2017, Peterman registered the Work with the Copyright Office.
(Doc. 28 at 6.) She filed her Complaint on May 16, 2017, alleging copyright
March 19, 2018, this Court granted in part and denied in part the RNC's motion to
advantage and allowing the copyright infringement claim to proceed. (Doc. 19.)
LEGAL STANDARD
motion must be considered on its own merits." Fair Hous. Council ofRiverside
Cty., Inc. v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation,
quotation marks, and alteration omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate "if the
movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
moving party bears the initial burden of proving the absence of a genuine dispute
of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). If that
burden is met, the non-moving party "must present affirmative evidence ... from
which a jury might return a verdict in his favor." Id. at 257. When the evidence
could support a jury verdict for either party, there exists a material factual dispute,
-4-
"Fair use is a mixed question of law and fact." Harper & Row Publishers,
Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 560 (1985). However, "[i]fthere are no
genuine issues of material fact, or if, even after resolving all issues in favor of the
opposing party, a reasonable trier of fact can reach only one conclusion, a court
may conclude as a matter of law whether the challenged use qualifies as a fair use
of the copyrighted work." Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Moral Majority, Inc., 796
DISCUSSION
The parties do not dispute that Peterman owns the Work and that the RNC
reproduced and distributed the Work, establishing Peterman' s prima facie case of
copyright infringement. See Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Prods., 353 F.3d
792, 799 (9th Cir. 2003). The RNC argues that it is nonetheless entitled to
summary judgment because the evidence establishes the affirmative defense of fair
use. In the alternative, the RNC seeks partial summary judgment on the issues of
willfulness and the measure of damages, contending that Peterman cannot recover
more than a single award of statutory damages. Peterman does not address the
statutory damages issue, ostensibly conceding that she is not entitled to an award
of statutory damages for each individual mailer. Instead, she argues that she is
entitled to partial summary judgment as to fair use and that the issue of willfulness
-5-
The Court agrees with the parties that there is no genuine dispute of material
fact bearing on the fair use inquiry. Because it finds that the relevant factors weigh
in favor of fair use, it grants the RNC's motion for summary judgment and does
( 1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
17 u.s.c. § 107.
Fair use "permits the use of copyrighted works without the copyright
owner's consent under certain situations," serving the goal of stimulating ingenuity
and promoting the free exchange of ideas without sacrificing creators' rights to
their work product. Perfect JO, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1163 (9th
Cir. 2007). The four statutory factors are "not to be simplified with bright-line
rules, for the statute, like the doctrine it recognizes, calls for case-by-case
-6-
analysis." Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 577 (1994) (citations
omitted).
The first factor is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether
U.S.C. § 107(1). Several principles may bear on this factor, including, as relevant
here: transformation and commerciality. 2 See Monge v. Maya Magazines, Inc., 688
1. Transformation
the text of the statute," Monge, 688 F.3d at 1173, has been described as "the most
important component of the inquiry into the purpose and character of the use,"
L.A. News Serv. v. CBS Broad., Inc., 305 F.3d 924, 938 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation
omitted), as amended, 313 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2002). "[T]he more transformative
the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like
commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use." Campbell, 510 U.S.
at 579.
2
The RNC argues that its good faith belief in the legality of its action and First Amendment free speech principles
should be discussed within the first factor. Good faith is relevant-if at all-to a fair use defense only to the degree
that a party "abuse[s] ... the good faith and fair dealing underpinnings of the fair use doctrine." Perfect 10, 508
F.3d 1146 n.8; see also Monge, 688 F.3d at 1173 n.6. Peterman has not argued that RNC's bad faith estops it from
raising the fair use defense, and so the RNC's good faith is not at issue. The First Amendment is incorporated into
the § 107 factors, as discussed elsewhere in this Order, and does not present an additional layer of protection for
unauthorized uses ofa copyrighted work. See infra p. 13-14 & n.4.
-7-
A work is transformative when it does not "merely supersede the objects of
the original creation" but "adds something new, with a further purpose or different
character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message." Id. at 579
whether the appropriation of the original leads to a "new creation," either through
changes to the work itself or through placement of the work in "a different
context." Wall Data Inc. v. L.A. Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 447 F.3d 769, 778 (9th Cir.
2006). Even an exact copy of a work may be transformative if "the copy serves a
different function than the original work." Perfect JO, 508 F.3d at 1165 (use of
The RNC argues that its use is transformative both because it altered the
original and because, in the context of the mailer, the nature of the Work changed.
The RNC made two minimal alterations to the Work, 3 cropping it to fit the mailer
and adding a soft stream of light from the three stage lights shining at Quist.
( Compare Doc. 1-1 with Doc. 28-1.) These alterations are not, on their own,
sufficiently transformative to find for the RNC. The cropping is irrelevant. The
RNC merely did away with black space in the image so that it would fill the back
panel of the mailer. The added glow of light is somewhat closer to transformative,
3
The RNC did not itself design the mailer, using services provided by a vendor, Majority Strategies, which is not a
party to this lawsuit. The Court refers to the RNC for the sake of simplicity, as RNC's potential liability for issuing
the mailers designed by Majority Strategies is not at issue.
-8-
but it is too subtle to alter the function of the Work. Indeed, to the degree that the
addition alters the Work, it intensifies the feeling of the original, playing up Quist's
background as a musician.
More significantly, the RNC added a treble clef and text critical of Quist to
the bottom-left comer of the image, repeating a visual theme used throughout the
mailer. On its own, this alteration would not be enough to render the use
transformative. In its Order on the RNC's motion to dismiss, the Court did not
have the entire mailer before it-only the back panel appropriating the Work. At
that stage of litigation, the Court determined that this addition was not sufficiently
transformative.
The Court now has the mailer before it, and the RNC's context-based
criticize his candidacy, subverting the purpose and function of the Work. With the
addition of the treble clefs and text throughout, the mailer attempts to create an
association between Quist's musical background and liberal political views. In the
context of the mailer, the image from the Mansfield-Metcalf Dinner is tied to the
images of Quist on the front and interior panels; Quist even appears to be wearing
the same clothes throughout, suggesting that Quist is giving a single musical
performance. On the front panel, a serious-looking Quist holds his guitar. In the
center of the mailer, he and Pelosi are playing side by side. On the back panel,
-9-
Quist is isolated on stage, lights shining down, conveying a sense of stark
emptiness and suggesting that there is no connection between the musician and the
In light of the mailer's clearly critical messaging, the Court finds that the
RNC's use "alter[ed] [] the expressive content or message of the original work."
Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc., 725 F.3d 1170, 1177 (9th Cir. 2013). Although the
RNC "ma[de] few physical changes" to the Work, "new expressive content or
The question is not, as both parties suggest to some degree, what Peterman
and the RNC subjectively intended to convey through Peterman's creation and the
RNC's use of the image. Peterman argues at length that her intent was not to
advance Quist's candidacy but only, in her words, "to highlight [Quist's] duality as
a political candidate and performing artist." (Doc. 38 at 16.) She claims that the
RNC shared Peterman's intent because it, too, wanted to associate Quist's
However, that factual dispute is not material and does not affect the analysis
under the first factor, which focuses on the "purpose and character of the use," not
-10-
the creator's purpose in creating the original work. 17 U.S.C. § 107(1) (emphasis
transformation .... " Monge, 688 F .3d at 1176 (quoting Infinity Broad. Corp. v.
Kirkwood, 150 F.3d 104, 108 (2d Cir. 1998)). A new purpose "by itself, does not
necessarily create new aesthetics or a new work that alter[s] the first [work] with
quotation marks and citation omitted). Regardless of the parties' intent, the Court
finds that the placement of the image in the mailer changed the function and
meaning of the Work by connoting a critical message not inherent to the Work
itself.
apparently stole the disputed pictures, stuck in the middle." 688 F. 3d at 1168. In
Monge, two Latin American celebrities documented their secret Las Vegas
ceremony and of the bride in her underwear on the wedding night. Id. at 1169. A
paparazzo allegedly stole the images and sold them to a Latin American tabloid,
which ran them in their cover story. Id. The photos were not altered in any way,
-11-
and the story was written as an exclusive expose of the undercover wedding, which
the couple feared would interfere with the bride's marketability as a pop singer.
Id. at 1168-69.
doctrine, the Court cannot agree that Monge controls. Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at
561. In Monge, Court held that the tabloid's use was "at best minimally
transformative," as the magazine neither "transform[ ed] the photos into a new
work ... [nor] incorporate[d] the photos as part of a broader work." Id. at 1177.
with written commentary." Id. The RNC's use was strictly in furtherance of its
In spite of the minimal alterations made to the Work itself, viewing the
RNC's use of the Work within the broader context of the mailer, the Court
2. Commerciality
By statute, relevant to the first fair use factor is the issue of whether the
-12-
"commercial" under§ 107(1). See, e.g., MasterCard Int'! Inc. v. Nader 2000
Am. Family Life Ins. Co. v. Hagan, 266 F. Supp. 2d 682, 697 (N.D. Ohio 2002)
discussed in First Amendment law, with the latter category of speech receiving the
highest level of protection and the former being more susceptible to regulation.
Compare Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm 'n, 558 U.S. 310, 340 (2010)
("Laws that burden political speech are subject to strict scrutiny ....") (quotation
omitted), with Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm 'n, 447 U.S.
makes sense that fair use doctrine respects this distinction, as "copyright's purpose
-13-
is to promote the creation and publication of free expression." Eldred v. Ashcroft,
Peterman nonetheless argues that "[t]he RNC profited from its use of the
Work because it stood to gain publicity, voters, and campaign donations. If the
RNC didn't stand to profit in some way from the use of the Work, it would have
had no reason to use it." (Doc. 38 at 20.) As a preliminary matter, the RNC did
not solicit campaign donations through the mailer. Moreover, self-interest is not
first factor of the fair use inquiry. Considering both transformation and
commerciality, the Court finds that the first factor weighs in favor of fair use.
The second factor focuses not on the alleged infringer's use but on the
"nature of the copyrighted work" itself. 17 U.S.C. § 107(2). "[C]reative works are
4
The RNC asks the Court to go several steps further, arguing that its use of the Work to further a political message
is entitled to First Amendment protection above and beyond that built into the Copyright Act. However, the fair use
defense is itself a "built-in First Amendment accommodation," and the RNC cites to no precedent supporting its
position that the First Amendment demands an additional layer of protection. Eldred, 537 U.S. at 219; see also
Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 558 ("[T]he Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression.").
-14-
functional works .... " Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109
F.3d 1394, 1402 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Campbell, 510 U.S. at 586).
In its Order on the RNC's motion to dismiss, the Court concluded that this
factor weighs against fair use. Additional factual development changes the
The photograph was published prior to its use in the mailer, which
strengthens the RNC's claim to fair use. See Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 564
("[T]he scope of fair use is narrower with respect to unpublished works."). The
details of that publication further improve the RNC's position. Not only was the
photograph published, but it was posted to both the MDP's and Quist Campaign's
attribution was listed. Peterman herself posted the Work to Twitter, captioned with
a Teddy Roosevelt quote and the hashtags #resist #RobQuist #Montana #vote
vendor did, download a high-quality version of the image. And, absent a complete
suspension of common sense, it must be assumed that the MDP, Quist Campaign,
and Peterman herself would have welcomed reposts, retweets, and other forms of
5
Peterman suggests that the Court should turn a blind eye to the use of the photo by the MOP and the Quist
Campaign because she owns the Work and they merely had a license to use the Work. She also states-without any
legal or factual support-that the license given to the MOP and the Quist Campaign was exclusive. (See Doc. 38 at
8). However, the public distribution of the image by the MDP and the Quist Campaign is relevant to the "value of
the materials used." Campbell, 510 U.S. at 586 (quoting Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas. 342 (C.C.C.D. Mass. 1841)
(no. 4,901)).
-15-
appropriation by other pro-Quist social media users. This, after all, is the purpose
However, on the other side of the equation, the Work is at least as creative as
Dinner. Peterman argues that the framing and composition of the Work
demonstrate that it an artistic work. Both parties are partially correct. Although
Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225 F.3d 1068, 1076 ("In assessing the 'creative spark' of a
author."') (quoting Jewelers' Circular Pub. Co. v. Keystone Pub. Co., 274 F. 932,
934 (S.D.N.Y 1921), with Galvin v. Ill. Republican Party, 130 F. Supp. 3d 1187,
1195 (N.D. Ill. 2015) ("This Court need only inspect the Photograph to
campaign event, the creative decisions made by Peterman push the Work "closer to
-16-
Considering both the publication of the Work and the creativity reflected in
the image, the Court determines that the "nature of the copyrighted work" weighs
The third factor in the fair use inquiry is the "[t]he amount and substantiality
consider not only "the quantity of the materials used" but also "their quality and
importance." Campbell, 510 U.S. at 587. While "'wholesale copying does not
preclude fair use per se,"' copying an entire work 'militates against a finding of
fair use."' Worldwide Church ofGodv. Phi/a. Church of God, Inc., 227 F.3d
1110, 1118 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Hustler Magazine, 796 F.2d at 1155).
If the subsequent user of the work "only copies as much as is necessary for
his or her intended use, then this factor will not weigh against him or her." Kelly v.
Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811, 820-21 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus, the use of an entire
image may be reasonable if a more limited use would not serve the defendant's
intended purpose. See Perfect 10, 508 F.3d at 1167--68 (finding use of entire
image necessary when the defendant used the image in its search engine).
In its Order on the RNC's motion to dismiss, the Court determined that the
RNC copied essentially the entirety of the Work. Further factual development
-17-
does not change the Court's analysis. As discussed under the first factor, the RNC
made minimal changes to the image before sending out the mailer. If anything, the
RNC's contention-that it could not reasonably appropriate part of the image and
See Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 565 ("[T]he fact that a substantial portion of the
infringing work was copied verbatim is evidence of the qualitative value of the
copied material, both to the originator and to the plagiarist who seeks to profit from
image associated with the Quist Campaign, and the RNC could have made its point
The fourth factor is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
most important element of fair use" because it strikes at the heart of the policy
served by the Copyright Act. Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 566----fJ7. "[A] use that
has no demonstrable effect upon the potential market for, or the value of, the
copyrighted work need not be prohibited in order to protect the author's incentive
to create." Sony Corp. ofAm. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417,450
(1984).
-18-
Ultimately, the fourth factor asks whether the use serves a "different market
function" than the original. Campbell, 510 U.S. at 591. Courts "consider not only
the extent of market harm caused by the particular actions of the alleged infringer,
but also whether unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by the
defendant would result in a substantially adverse impact on the potential market for
the original." Campbell, 510 U.S. at 590 (1994) (internal quotation marks,
Here, the undisputed facts demonstrate that the RNC's use did not and will
not interfere with Peterman' s ability to profit from the original Work. The burden
of establishing each factor of the fair use defense falls on the party asserting the
defense, presenting a challenge for the defendant, who must demonstrate the
nonexistence of a market for the original. See Campbell, 510 U.S. at 590. That
unfair exploitation of the monopoly privilege that belongs to the owner of the
copyright, noncommercial uses are a different matter." Sony Corp., 464 U.S. at
451; see also Hustler Magazine, 796 F.2d at 1156 (finding fourth factor satisfied
where "[a]lthough Defendants used the [work] for a commercial purpose in the
sense that they profited from copying it, they did not actually sell the copies to
willing buyers" but instead to "generate moral outrage . .. and thus stimulate
-19-
Peterman received the entirety of her $500 fee to photograph the Mansfield-
Peterman would receive no additional fee for their use of the Work, the Quist
Campaign and the MDP made the Work available for download on Facebook
unclear how the Work could conceivably have any future commercial value to
position on this factor. Peterman argues that "[i]t is possible [she] lost additional
revenue from customers who might have licensed her images but did not do so
because should could not guarantee the images' exclusivity. In addition, the
Montana Democratic Party may not hire [her] in the future to shoot their events
because she cannot guarantee her images' exclusivity." (Doc. 38 at 24.) However,
the Copyright Act does not exist to protect artists' general reputations. No artist
can guarantee exclusivity; every copyrighted work is subject to fair use. 17 U.S.C.
§ 106 (providing that exclusive rights in copyrighted works are subject to § 107).
What is more, the Supreme Court has considered and rejected the argument
that the fourth factor is satisfied when the original work loses value due to
-20-
remediable displacement and unremediable disparagement." Campbell, 510 U.S.
at 592. For example, "when a lethal parody, like a scathing theater review, kills
demand for the original, it does not produce a harm cognizable under the
Copyright Act." Id. at 591-92. "[T]he role of the courts is to distinguish between
biting criticism that merely suppresses demand and copyright infringement, which
usurps it." Id. at 592 (citation, quotation marks, and alteration omitted). Thus,
even in the unlikely situation that the Work's value to Peterman had decreased
Thus, the fourth and most important factor of the fair use inquiry supports a
finding of fair use. Weighing the four factors of the test, the Court determines that
the undisputed facts establish that the RNC is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. The third factor-the amount and substantiality of the portion used-weighs
against fair use. The second factor supports neither party, as the original work was
both creative and freely available online. However, the other two factors are
noncommercial, and it performed a different market function than did the original.
Because RNC is entitled to summary judgment on its fair use defense, the
Court does not reach the issue of willfulness, and it denies as moot Peterman' s
-21-
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 31) is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary
DENIED as moot.
-22-